Introduction to democracy
Democracy can easily devolve down to a tyranny of the majority and then into civil war if one side does not accept defeat.
Democracy comes in various flavors
Human rights are based on property rights. If we do not have a rational position on property rights human rights will be eroded.
Positocracy is a replacement for democracy. It is the rule of the masculine over the feminine. Positocracy is a positive improvement over democracy.
Our people have a right to expect their property rights to be respected.
It seems, by what some say, that we only need to give people the vote and all their problems are solved. But bad choices are not a consequence of not having democracy and democracy is not a cure for the problem bad decision making creates.
There are several forms of democracy. This is a good indication than none of them perform as well as they might. Direct democracy is subtitled, “The tyranny of the majority,” and representative democracy is often viewed as little more than the people being given the choice of dictator.
Democracy does not or has not resolved the issue of disparities in population densities. One sector may have as many voters as 10 other jurisdictions. Ought the heavily populated area be dictated to be a consortium of ten regions, ought the ten regions lose their voice because of the concentration of votes in a single area?
We are not going to address all the problems with democracy here.
What needs to be accented is that democracy is a special case of Utilitarianism. In Utilitarian thought we need to do what leads to the most utility, or happiness. In simplistic terms if the majority get their way then the most happiness will have been produced. This is of course doubtful.
Deontology disagrees with this position by suggesting duty is more important than seeking happiness. We need to try and do what is right. Democracy has adjusted to this kind of thinking by developing what is known of as Representative Democracy. The majority vote in a Representative but the Representative seems him or herself as the representative of all citizens not just his or her voting base.
Deontology believes moral choices require intent whereas Unitarians are more concerned with consequences but most moral theories will agree without intent and consequences moral actions do not exist.
These may seem like arcane arguments but a democracy that cannot produce a moral result is not likely to work as it needs to.
Utilitarianism is a philosophy that maximizes value, specifically the value of our assets.
This is both a duty, as it behooves us to create value whenever we can because any other option is irrational, and it is a justified by the consequences as creating value is a good in and of itself. So Christian Utilitarianism is a synthesis of Consequentialism and Deontological ethics as well as a way to synthesize science, religion and philosophy within a political theory.
Ethical organizations build bible-based communities consistent with the truths and methodologies of science. Conventional parties promise to create happiness; voters then vote for them so as to enable them to fulfill their promises. Ethical organizations try to be useful in terms of increased accountability and lowered levels of freeloading. If this leads to electoral wins it is a bonus but it is not the objective of those organizations governed by the ethical prime directive.
LOGICAL MINDS ONLY primary purpose is to offer policy and advice on how to manage time more wisely, as this is always the ethical thing to do. Effective time management eliminates taxation and other social costs. The ethical directive effectively eliminates the possibility of ethical organizations having or gaining political power. An election win is redundant so far as time management is concerned.
LOGICAL MINDS ONLY provides various policy statements as a guide to what time management based policy looks like. These policy statements can be adopted by political parties that seek to build or support a ZERO TAX rate. We support any party that reflects the policy initiatives provided here.
Exchanges are the main vehicle by which time management policy is inserted into communities. Exchanges are administratively consistent with the organizationally flat profile of a 1st century church. Exchanges promote a ZERO TAX rate.
LOGICAL MINDS ONLY works with political parties and organizations including small groups and municipal organizations to help implement policies that reduce and ultimately eliminate taxes and other social costs as well as increase accountability and reduce freeloading. Ethical time management eliminates social costs within and through the political and economic institutions now existing. All institutions existing on tax revenues must be replaced with their free market equivalents. Exchanges privatize public service networks and transforms existing public institutions into free market organizations. Governments are to serve an administrative function not a prescriptive one. Exchanges administrate assets they do not seek to push a social agenda.
Liberal social policy necessitates social costs be created and this inevitably leads to division and a reliance on the public sector. Liberalism does not just waste resources over time they will become fascist organizations. Authority without accountability for the costs created is the essence of fascism. Unregulated authority no matter how well-meaning, is fascist. Authority without accountability is tyranny.
Ethical governments acquire legitimacy from the base. Without all power extending from the bottom democracy is an illusion. Ultimately all power comes from the people. The power of the people rests on their ownership of all wealth. It is when democracy permits ownership and power to become centralized that democracy becomes fascism. Democracy must be a means to an end, the end must be the production of wealth free of tax burdens.
Governments must be administrative not prescriptive. Responsible administrations seek to eliminate social costs and permit the people to exercise their sovereignty as owners. The state is not to engineer society or implement a social agenda. This is why the best government is the least (prescriptive) government.
Ethical time management requires we be accountable for costs we create. Free markets create tax-free communities. The electorate retain all power not specifically assigned to a higher organizational level. Exchanges are able to produce social goods without producing social costs because power remains with the owners at the grassroots level.
The waste of resources is a violation of our property rights. Our human rights are meaningless without economic and political power, the power that comes from privatization. One will not find cultures that enslave its people exhibit a serious commitment to human rights.
The politics favored by the West is democracy. It is democracy that has often been credited with providing the most developed nations with their culture. Without some degree of democracy, culture becomes a social service provided by the State. This happens in dictatorships.
Democracy is not a simple, one size fits all, concept, however. What is called democracy is technically what is more precisely called Representative Democracy. In representative democracies the people do not vote directly on legislation but for a representative and he or she acts on their behalf.
Representative Democracy has become popular because Direct Democracy easily decays into a tyranny of the majority. Direct democracies are also prone to endless debate.
Representative democracies generally use a proportional system of voting. There being the probability of a tyranny of the majority possibility with the First Past The Post electoral system. The biggest problem Western democracies face is that most of the population is in a few cities that tend to vote more left while the vast stretches of the rural areas are sparsely populated and vote more to the right. First Past The Post means one large city would dominate every election.
Minority rights are not protected in a Direct Democracy. In Representative Democracies the elected official is supposed to represent all of his or her constituents. In reality he or she is embedded in a particular culture and mind set and tends to vote for those things that reflect his or her own personal preferences. It does not make the system more equitable that the majority who elect him or her tend to represent the same racial, religious and social background.
Depending on the politician and his or her party he or she may or may not represent the interests of many members of his or her constituency. The degree to which his or her votes favor one or more sectors is only to be guessed at.
There is the need not to anger or isolate one’s core support group, so legislation will tend to favor a particular constituency for the most part though effort will be made to give the appearance of voting in response to more pluralistic reasons.
What few people understand is the difference integrity makes to how well a system works. A tyrant with integrity may well serve the people better than a democratic leader with none. Justin Trudeau was democratically elected in Canada but has abandoned any pretense at being a representative of the majority population. His concern as was his father’s, is to ensure himself a place in the globalist future he is building for Canada. Trudeau is not in the conventional sense of the term, a Canadian leader. It is more honest to label him a Globalist. His antipathy for Western Culture explains, to some degree, his support for Islam. Islam has a key role to play in bringing forth the New World Order. Despite the certainty of some that he is a convert to Islam the reality is it does not matter. The bottom line is he is aligned with Islam because Islam is aligned with the globalist agenda.
Democracy is less a way to ensure good government as it is a way to revoke support for a government that is governing badly. However, the Trudeaus have demonstrated, a lot of damage can be done during even one term.
It is obvious there is a weakness in democracy that is being exploited. The reliance on the support of a majority keeps a party sensitive to the needs of the people but it can also be a call to pander to the common denominator or average voter. Pandering to the majority does not require personal integrity and indeed is more likely to benefit the demagogue, who can play to the fears and wants of the masses.
Democracy is susceptible to being exploited by demagogues. The tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny even if the tyranny expresses the will of the people. The free world condemns dictatorship because it is said to take away people’s freedom, but this is not absolutely the case. A dictator may have the power to take away people’s freedoms, but it is not an essential component of a dictatorship. Democracies can also take away people’s freedom if a strong leader has a large proportion willing to resort to tyrannical means to support his initiatives.
But is not pandering to a majority a good thing so far as democracy is concerned? Is not expressing the will of the people, as expressed in the popular vote, what democracy is all about? Not when the government becomes nothing more than a bread and circuses exhibition. When what sort of bread and circuses the people will get become the deciding factor in an election then democracy is or becomes a farce. When elections become solely fixated on what the majority will get in the way of benefits it becomes increasingly difficult for a responsible party to be elected and more likely the least responsible and least ethical party will win.
What of a democratically elected leader who leads their nation into insolvency, as happened recently in Greece and is now playing out in Venezuela? Greece is the home of democracy, but democracy did not save it and in fact has contributed to its being taken over by a foreign power, the UN. The World Bank is not a pro-democracy institution. Its focus is on the open borders and free trade policies of the globalists. What options are open to the people to take back their power and head the country down a different road when their governments conspire to take them elsewhere?
The free market is a way to express the popular will that eliminates the tyrannical aspects of representative democracy. This is something that is important to get right. Governments ought not to impose their will on the people not even with the blessing of the majority of voters. Candidates are voted in to represent the people in a more controllable way. However changing direct democracy into a representative democracy does not eliminate the problem of tyranny or statism nor globalism.
Government ought to function as an administrator of the public weal. Politicians are not called on to be social engineers. Governments are the servants of the people not the boss of the people.
The real problem with communist governments was the fact that they existed as the people's bosses. But how much different are modern governments from the tyrannies of the past, if modern-day politicians extract the greater part of the wealth produced from the productive sector.
The only way social costs can be justified is if the end is shown to justify the means. This is the role or purpose of a social agenda. The social agenda is said to be so important, that whatever means are needed to achieve it is justified. The end, by virtue of the agenda, justifies the means. If this is ok with you then you are not paying the costs of these choices or, you support the policy and are glad to pay its costs. But does this mean that others ought to fund your vision and your values?
The bottom line is so long as the ones who want the product or service are the ones paying for the product or service everything is ok. It is however, only when we achieve a ZERO TAX rate that we can be confident only those who favor a policy will be paying for the delivery of the policy.
Positocracy is a conjunction of Positivity and ocracy; meaning the rule of the most positive. The distinction between it and democracy is that in a democracy the ruler claims authority by a process of might makes right; in an positocracy the ruler earns it by positive actions.
The distinction is that in a democracy the government is made up of people who assert they have earned the right to have authority by their power to grasp it. In an positocracy the government is composed of people who have earned the position by their positive contribution to their community; as adjudicated by the people and the positive market.
Democracy is never anything more than a tyranny of the majority. If you dislike paying someone else’s tab you do not like democracy. Its time to discover the alternative.